BackgroundSonication is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). However, conditions and definition criteria for PJI vary among studies. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance (i.e., specificity, sensitivity) of sonicate fluid culture (SFC) against periprosthetic tissue culture (PTC), when using European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria.MethodsFrom March 2017 to April 2018, 257 implants were submitted for sonication. PJI was defined according to the EBJIS criteria as well as according to the International Consensus Meeting criteria of 2018 (ICM 2018). Only cases with at least one corresponding tissue sample were included. Samples were cultured using traditional microbiological plating techniques. Sensitivity and specificity were determined using two-by-two contingency tables. McNemar’s test was used to compare proportions among paired samples. Subgroup analysis was performed dividing the cohort according to the site of PJI, previous antibiotic treatment, and time of manifestation. Prevalence of pathogens was determined for all patients as well as for specific subgroups.ResultsAmong the 257 cases, 145 and 112 were defined as PJI and aseptic failure, respectively. When using the EBJIS criteria, the sensitivity of SFC and PTC was 69.0 and 62.8%, respectively (p = .04). Meanwhile, the specificity was 90.2 and 92.9%, respectively (p = .65). When adopting ICM 2018 criteria, the sensitivity of SFC and PTC was 87.5 and 84.4% (p = .63) respectively, while the specificity was 85.1 and 92.5% (p = .05), respectively. The most commonly identified pathogens were coagulase-negative staphylococci (26% overall), while 31% of PJI were culture-negative and 9% polymicrobial.ConclusionsSFC exhibited significantly greater sensitivity versus PTC when using the EBJIS criteria. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of PJI remains a difficult challenge and different diagnostic tools are necessary to optimize the outcome.
A key factor in the successful management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) besides the surgical regime is a consistent antimicrobial therapy. Recently, oral versus intravenous (IV) antibiotics for bone and joint infection trial demonstrated the noninferiority of oral antimicrobial therapy compared to IV, implying that an early transition to oral administration is reasonable. It is likely that the international consensus meeting of musculoskeletal Infections and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society will consider these findings. However, rising levels of antimicrobial resistance are challenging and recommendations for dealing with multidrug‐resistant (MDR) pathogens resistant to oral antibiotics are lacking. This study focuses on establishing guidance towards their management in PJI. From December 2015 to June 2019, patients with MDR pathogens were included in a single‐center prospective cohort study and treated with self‐administered outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (S‐OPAT) based on a two‐stage revision strategy. Demographics, pathogens, antimicrobial agents, and outcomes were recorded. A total of 1738 outpatient days in 26 patients were analyzed. The incidence of pathogens resistant to oral antibiotics in PJI was 4%, most frequently encountered were staphylococcus epidermidis. The Kaplan–Meier‐estimated infection‐free survival after 3 years was 90% (95% confidence interval, 84.6%–95.5%). We recorded adverse events in 6 of 54 (11%) S‐OPAT episodes (3.45/1000 S‐OPAT days). (i) S‐OPAT in two‐stage revision arthroplasty to counter increasing numbers of MDR pathogens resistant to oral agents can achieve a high infection eradication rate and (ii) should therefore be taken into account at the next society's consensus treatment updates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.